UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Han. James B. Clark, III
v. Mag. No. 14-3102 (JBC)
SHIRLEY SOOY CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
I, Anthony Gonzalez, being duly sworn, state the following is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
I further state that l am a Postal Inspector with the United States Postal Inspection
Service, and that this Complaint is based on the following facts:
SEE ATTACHMENT B
continued on the attached pages and made a part hereof.
Sworn to before me and
subscribed in my presence
May 27, 2014 at
Newark, New Jersey
HONORABL AMES B. CLARK, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE J UDGE

Anthony Gonzalez, Postal Inspector
United States Postal inspection Service
ATTACHMENT A
Count One
(Wire Fraud Conspiracy)
From at least as early as in or around 2003 through in or around April2013, in the
District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant
SHIRLEY SOOY
knowingly and intentionally conspired and agreed with "D.S." and others to devise a scheme and
artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property from Victim Companies by means of
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and, for the purpose of
executing such scheme and artifice to defraud, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by
means of wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce, certain writings, signs,
signals, pictures, and sounds, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.
Count Two
(Wire Fraud)
On or about March 31, 2013, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant
SHIRLEY SOOY
knowingly and intentionally devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and
to obtain money and property from Victim Companies by means of materially false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and, for the purpose of executing and
attempting to execute such scheme and artifice, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by
means of wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce, certain writings, signs,
signals, pictures, and sounds, specifically, an e-mail from Trans Vantage in New Jersey to Victim
Company C in Pennsylvania, containing invoice 0009982-IN for Trans Vantage's purported
freight bill audit and payment services.
In violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1343 and Section 2.
Counts Two through Four
(Mail Fraud)
On or about the dates set forth below, in the Di strict ofNew Jersey and elsewhere,
defendant
SHIRLEY SOOY
knowingl y and intentionally devi sed and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and
to obtain money and property from Victim Compani es by means of materially fal se and
fraudulent pretenses, representati ons, and promi ses, and, for the purpose of execut ing and
attempting to execute such scheme and artifice to defraud, placed and caused to be placed in any
post office and authorized depository for mail matter any matter and thing whatever to be sent
and delivered by the Postal Service, each constituting a separate count of thi s Complai nt:
Count Approximate Date Description
Mailing from New Jersey to Victim Company Bin
..,
April 5, 2013
Florida containing invoices 0009945-fN and
..)
0009947-fN for Trans Vantage' s purported freight
bill audit and payment services
Mailing from New Jersey to Victim Company D in
4 April 5, 2013
Louisiana containing invoice 0009940-IN for
Trans Vantage's purported frei ght bill audit and
payment services
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341 and Section 2.
2
Counts Five and Six
(Transacting in Criminal Proceeds)
On or about the dates set forth below, in the District ofNew Jersey, and elsewhere,
defendant
SHIRLEY SOOY
knowingly engaged and attempted to engage in monetary transactions affecting interstate
commerce in criminally deri ved property of a value greater than $10,000, such property having
been derived from specified unlawful activity, that is wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1343 and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2, as fo llows:
Count Approximate Date Monetary Transaction
Wire for approximately $12,583.16 from an account
5 December 7, 2011
held by TransVantage in New Jersey to the Palm
Beach County Tax Collector for taxes owed on
defendant SOOY' s condominium
Wire for approximately $60,000 from an account held
6 June4, 2012 by Trans Vantage in New Jersey to an account ending
in 0424 held by defendant SOOY
In violati on of Title 18, United States Code, Secti on 1957 and Section 2.
3
ATTACHMENT B
I, Anthony Gonzalez, a Postal Inspector with the United States Postal Inspection
Service ("USPIS"), having conducted an investigation and discussed this matter with other law
enforcement officers who have participated in this investigation, have knowledge of the
following facts. Because this Complaint is being submitted for the limited purpose of
establishing probable cause, I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning
this investigation. I have set forth only the facts which I believe are necessary to establish
probable cause. Unless specifically indicated, all conversations and statements described in this
affidavit are related in substance and in part, and all dates are approximate.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, unless otherwise indicated:
RELEVANT INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES
1. The Trans Vantage Group ("Trans Vantage") was a collection of freight payment,
logistics, and shipping businesses comprised of Trans Vantage Solutions (f/k/a FTS Industries,
Inc.), Trans Vantage Transportation, Inc., and TransVantage Forwarding, Inc., among others, and
prior incarnations of these businesses, including, among others: FTS Freight Traffic Services;
The Logistics Group; STS Transportation, Inc.; ICS Warehousing; and ICS Intermodal
Consolidating Services, Inc. Each business within Trans Vantage was incorporated in New
Jersey.
2. Defendant SHIRLEY SOOY ("SOOY") was a resident of New Jersey and
elsewhere. Between in or around 2003 and in or around 2008, defendant SOOY served as
assistant to the President and as Director of Operations at Trans Vantage. In or around 2007,
defendant SOOY also became the President ofTransVantage. In or around 2010, defendant
SOOY became the sole shareholder of Trans Vantage.
3. "D.S.," a co-conspirator not named as a defendant herein, was one of the founders
of Trans Vantage. Until his death in or around 2008, co-conspirator D.S. exerted primary control
and operation ofTransVantage.
4. Common carriers and freight forwarders (collectively, the "Carriers") were
transportation and logistics companies hired by businesses to transport goods within the United
States and elsewhere. The Carriers generated freight bills for each shipment they carried for
their customers.
5. Trans Vantage entered into contracts with its clients (collectively, the "Victim
Companies") pursuant to which Trans Vantage audited freight bills generated by the Victim
Companies' Carriers and paid the audited and approved freight bills from funds provided by the
Victim Companies for that express purpose (the "Carrier Payment Funds"). The Carrier
Payment Funds were supposed to be held in trust by Trans Vantage until paid over to the
Carriers. The Victim Companies paid Trans Vantage for its purported services, but these
payments were separate and apart from the Carrier Payment Funds.
1
6. Victim Company A, headquartered in or around Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
manufactured and supplied automotive and building equipment, controls, and services.
7. Victim Company B, headquartered in or around Sarasota, Florida, produced and
distributed consumer food products.
8. Victim Company C, headquartered in or around Easton, Pennsylvania, developed
and produced industrial parts and technologies.
9. Victim Company D, headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, developed and
manufactured chemicals and other industrial products.
OVERVIEW OF THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
10. During the period charged in this Complaint, defendant SOOY and others
operated Trans Vantage as a large-scale and long-running corporate Ponzi scheme which resulted
in more than $42 million in losses to the Victim Companies. Trans Vantage, under the leadership
of defendant SOOY and others, received billions of dollars in Carrier Payment Funds from the
Victim Companies, which funds were supposed to be used solely for the payment of the Victim
Companies' Carrier bills, once those bills had been audited and approved by Trans Vantage. In
truth and in fact, however, defendant SOOY and others co-mingled the various Victim
Companies' Carrier Payment Funds into one of two freight payment accounts held at financial
institutions (collectively, the "Freight Payment Plan Accounts"), and then misused that money
to, among other things:
a. pay older, unpaid Carrier bills of certain Victim Companies- using Carrier
Payment Funds provided by other, unrelated Victim Companies;
b. fund Trans Vantage's payroll obligations;
c. fund the obligations of various Trans Vantage subsidiaries; and
d. subsidize millions of dollars in personal expenses of defendant SOOY and
others, including:
i. mortgage payments for personal properties owned by defendant SOOY
and others, including real estate in or around Bloomsbury, New Jersey,
1
On occasion, certain Victim Companies combined Carrier Payment Funds and Trans Vantage's service fee into one
wire transfer, for the sake of convenience. Even in those circumstances, however, the terms of the contracts
between Trans Vantage and the Victim Companies made clear that the Carrier Payment Funds were to be held in
trust by Trans Vantage, and never belonged to Trans Vantage to do with what Trans Vantage saw fit.
2
Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Waretown, New Jersey, and Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida;
11. an approximately 48 foot yacht purchased by co-conspirator D.S.,
defendant SOOY, and others;
111. an approximately $I 35,000 Maserati automobile purchased by co-
conspirator D.S.;
iv. payments for personal credit card charges incurred by defendant
SOOY and her family members; and
v. payments for remodeling defendant SOOY's home.
THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
11. The Victim Companies used numerous Carriers to move their products, and
generated thousands of Carrier bills each month. Given the number of Carrier bills generated,
the Victim Companies relied on Trans Vantage to audit those bills for accuracy, and then to pay
the Carriers if the bills were accurate.
12. Pursuant to contracts between each Victim Company and Trans Vantage, the
Victim Companies advanced Carrier Payment Funds to Trans Vantage by wiring their money to a
Freight Payment Plan Account at Bank of America ("Financial Institution A") or at TD Bank
("Financial Institution B"), as designated by Trans Vantage. This money belonged to the Victim
Companies, and Trans Vantage was contractually required to hold the Carrier Payment Funds in
trust for the sole purpose of paying upcoming Carrier bills that had been audited and approved.
13. As just one example, Victim Company B's contract with Trans Vantage provided,
in relevant part:
[A]ll funds received from [Victim Company B] for payment of freight bills shall
be deposited in a "zero balance" trust account for the benefit of [Victim Company
B] and other [Trans Vantage] customers (the "Account"), and shall not be
commingled with any funds or assets of [Trans Vantage]. At no time shall any
such funds received from [Victim Company B] be considered to be among the
assets of [Trans Vantage] and any use or treatment of those funds by
[Trans Vantage] shall be deemed to constitute a misappropriation/conversion of
those funds.
14. Trans Vantage earned revenue by charging a fee for each Carrier bill that it
processed on behalf of the Victim Companies, and it charged these fees on invoices that were
transmitted by Trans Vantage to the Victim Companies for payment (the "Service Fee Invoices").
Certain Service Fee Invoices were transmitted to the Victim Companies via e-mail, while other
Service Fee Invoices were transmitted to the Victim Companies through mail carried by the
Postal Service.
3
15. The Victim Companies paid TransVantage's Service Fee Invoices from funds
separate and apart from the Victim Companies' Carrier Payment Funds (whether actually
transmitted together with, or separate from, TransVantage's fees). Pursuant to its contractual
agreements with the Victim Companies, Trans Vantage was not authorized to extract its service
fees, or other form of compensation, from the Carrier Payment Funds.
16. Each Service Fee Invoice referenced the specific Carrier bills that supposedly had
been paid by Trans Vantage from the Victim Company's Carrier Payment Funds. During the
course of the scheme to defraud, defendant SOOY and others caused certain Service Fee
Invoices to include material misrepresentations in that they falsely indicated that Specific Carrier
bills had been paid, when in fact they had not.
17. These Service Fee Invoices induced the Victim Companies to pay the Service Fee
Invoices, and also induced the Victim Companies to continue remitting Carrier Payment Funds
to Trans Vantage, in the mistaken belief that Trans Vantage was using the Carrier Payment Funds
for their proper purposes.
THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD COLLAPSES
18. In or around March 2013, Victim Company A received communications from
certain Carriers stating that the Carriers had not been paid for specific Carrier bills,
notwithstanding that Victim Company A had already forwarded payment for those specific
Carrier bills to Trans Vantage.
19. Representatives from Victim Company A immediately contacted Trans Vantage
and demanded to know where Victim Company A's money had gone. Defendant SOOY first
instructed certain Trans Vantage employees to inform Victim Company A's representatives that
everything was fine, that there were no problems with Trans Vantage's payments, and that the
only possible issue was a "float" issue: i.e., that there were simply less prepaid funds from the
Victim Companies available, for a short period of time.
20. Based upon the information from its Carriers, and based upon the representations
ofTransVantage's employees, Victim Company A cut off further payments to the Freight
Payment Plan Account at Financial Institution A.
21. Victim Company A also dispatched a team of auditors from an accounting firm to
try to determine what had transpired at Trans Vantage, and where Victim Company A's money
had gone. The audit investigation revealed that approximately $I 5 million paid by Victim
Company A to Trans Vantage was never provided to Victim Company A's freight carriers as
defendant SOOY and others had represented to Victim Company A. The money is currently
largely unaccounted for.
22. When Victim Company A stopped paying Trans Vantage, the corporate Ponzi
scheme orchestrated by defendant SOOY and others collapsed, as Trans Vantage could no longer
4
cover its illegal activities by paying the Carrier bills of one Victim Company with the Carrier
Payment Funds of another Victim Company.
23. Subsequently, other Victim Companies, including Victim Company B, Victim
Company C, and Victim Company D, among others, each learned that certain of their Carriers,
too, had not been paid, notwithstanding the fact that these Victim Companies had sent tens of
millions of dollars to Trans Vantage for the sole purpose of paying specific Carrier bills.
24. As a result, these Victim Companies made repeated efforts to contact defendant
SOOY and other representatives of Trans Vantage to determine the status of their Carrier
Payment Funds. For example, on or about Aprill9, 2013, an officer of Victim Company B
reached a Trans Vantage employee, who stated in sum and substance that "something's going on
around here" and that Victim Company B should "do whatever you have to do" to protect Victim
Company B's interests. The employee further stated that only defendant SOOY would have
information on what happened to Victim Company B's money, but that defendant SOOY was
not available to speak to the officer.
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
Victim Company C
25. In or around March 2013, pursuant to a written contract between Victim
Company C and Trans Vantage, certain Carriers associated with Victim Company C sent Carrier
bills to Trans Vantage.
26. These Carrier bills requested various payments, including one group of bills that
requested approximately $534,24 7 .25, and were assigned weekly invoice number 30663 by
Trans Vantage.
27. On or about March 31,2013, defendant SOOY and others e-mailed, or caused to
bee-mailed, a Service Fee Invoice in the amount of approximately $3,687.20 from Trans Vantage
in New Jersey to Victim Company C in Pennsylvania. This Service Fee Invoice was numbered
0009982-IN, and falsely claimed that Trans Vantage had audited the bills associated with weekly
invoice number 30663, and had paid the approximately $534,247.25 billed by the Carriers.
28. In truth and in fact, however, Trans Vantage had paid only approximately
$19,156.07 of the Carrier bills associated with weekly invoice number 30663, and defendant
SOOY and others diverted the remainder of Victim Company C's funds to their own uses
without disclosing the diversion of funds.
29. On or about April 11,2013, in reliance upon the material misrepresentations made
by defendant SOOY and others at Trans Vantage, and believing that the Carrier bills associated
with weekly invoice number 30663, among others, had been paid, Victim Company C provided
funds to Trans Vantage to cover Service Fee Invoice 0009982-IN.
5
Victim Company B
30. In or around March 2013, pursuant to a written contract between Victim
Company B and Trans Vantage, certain Carriers associated with Victim Company B sent Carrier
bills to Trans Vantage.
31. These Carrier bills requested various payments, including one group of bills that
requested approximately $790,409.96, and was assigned weekly invoice number 30658 by
Trans Vantage.
32. On or about AprilS, 2013, defendant SOOY and others mailed, or caused to be
mailed, a Service Fee Invoice in the amount of approximately $2, 171.56 from Trans Vantage in
New Jersey to Victim Company Bin Florida. This Service Fee Invoice was numbered 0009947-
IN, and claimed, falsely, that Trans Vantage had audited the bills associated with weekly invoice
number 30658, and had provided funds to cover the approximately $790,409.96 billed by the
Carriers.
33. In truth and in fact, however, TransVantage had paid only approximately
$379,304.34 of the Carrier bills associated with weekly invoice number 30658, and defendant
SOOY and others diverted the remainder of Victim Company B's funds to their own uses
without disclosing the diversion of funds.
34. On or about April24, 2013, in reliance upon the material misrepresentations made
by defendant SOOY and others at Trans Vantage, and believing that the Carrier bills associated
with weekly invoice number 30658, among others, had been paid, Victim Company B provided
funds to Trans Vantage to cover Service Fee Invoice 0009947-IN.
Victim Company D
35. In or around March 2013, pursuant to a written contract between Victim
Company D and Trans Vantage, certain Carriers associated with Victim Company D sent Carrier
bills to Trans Vantage.
36. These Carrier bills requested various payments, including one group of bills that
requested approximately $956,862.90, and was assigned weekly invoice number 30704 by
Trans Vantage.
37. On or about April 5, 2013, defendant SOOY and others mailed, or caused to be
mailed, a Service Fee Invoice in the amount of approximately $3,966.00 from Trans Vantage in
New Jersey to Victim Company Din Louisiana. This Service Fee Invoice was numbered
0009940-IN, and claimed, falsely, that Trans Vantage had audited the bills associated with
weekly invoice number 30704, and had provided funds to cover the approximately $956,862.90
billed by the Carriers.
38. In truth and in fact, however, Trans Vantage had paid only approximately
$375,454.49 of the Carrier bills associated with weekly invoice number 30704, and defendant
6
SOOY and others diverted the remainder of Victim Company D's funds to their own uses
without disclosing the diversion of funds.
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF MISAPPROPRIATION OF CARRIER PAYMENT FUNDS
39. As noted above, the Carrier Payment Funds in the Freight Payment Plan Accounts
were held in trust by Trans Vantage, and should not have been used for any purpose other than to
pay designated and specific Carrier bills. In many instances, however, defendant SOOY and
others did not use Carrier Payment Funds to pay these Carrier bills. Instead, defendant SOOY
and others used, or caused t.o be used, Carrier Payment Funds for unauthorized purposes.
40. For example, in or around December 20I1, defendant SOOY and others caused
approximately $12,583.I6 to be wired from the Freight Payment Plan Account at Financial
Institution A to another account held by Trans Vantage. On or about December 7, 20 II,
defendant SOOY and others caused a wire transfer in the amount of approximately $I2,583.16 to
be sent from this account held by Trans Vantage in New Jersey to the Palm Beach County Tax
Collector in Florida. These funds were sent or caused to be sent by defendant SOOY to cover
taxes owed on defendant SOOY's condominium in Palm Beach County, Florida.
41. As another example, in or around June 20I2, defendant SOOY and others caused
approximately $60,000 to be wired from the Freight Payment Plan Account at Financial
Institution A to another account held by Trans Vantage. On or about June 4, 2012, defendant
SOOY and others caused a wire transfer in the amount of approximately $60,000 to be sent from
this account to a personal banking account ending in 0424 held by defendant SOOY. The money
was then disbursed to pay for defendant SOOY's personal expenses.
DEFENDANT SOOY'S ADMISSIONS
42. Since the unraveling of the corporate Ponzi scheme described above, defendant
SOOY has made various statements revealing her knowledge of, and participation in, the
fraudulent scheme. The following are just a few examples:
a. In or around March 2013, an auditor hired by Victim Company A performed
an on-site examination at Trans Vantage. During this examination, defendant
SOOY stated that a multi-million dollar "cash hole" had existed at
Trans Vantage for years and that Trans Vantage used Victim Company A's
money to fill the "hole." Defendant SOOY further stated that some of Victim
Company A's money had been invested and lost in the stock market years
earlier.
b. In or around May 2013, defendant SOOY was deposed in a civil action arising
out of her operation of Trans Vantage. During the deposition, defendant
SOOY stated, among other things, that:
i. In or around April20IO, defendant SOOY learned that Trans Vantage
was running a "deficit," or had a "shortfall" or "hole" - i.e., that
7
Trans Vantage did not have enough money to pay Carriers with the
money that was coming in from the Victim Companies.
n. When defendant SOOY learned of this deficit, she "went into panic, a
panic mode."
iii. Notwithstanding that defendant SOOY learned of the deficit in or
around April 2010, she nonetheless continued to operate Trans Vantage
and did not inform the Victim Companies.
1v. In or around 2010, the deficit at Trans Vantage- the amount that had
been paid by the Victim Companies, but which was not used to pay
Carrier freight bills -was approximately $13 million. By 2013, when
the scheme collapsed, it was approximately $42 million.
v. Co-conspirator D.S. made loans to third parties with money that had
been entrusted to Trans Vantage by the Victim Companies for the sole
purpose of paying Carrier freight bills. Defendant SOOY learned of
these loans in or around 201 0, but did not inform any of the Victim
Companies about these loans.
8